Hard Light Productions Forums

Hosted Projects - Standalone => Fate of the Galaxy => Topic started by: aRaven on December 08, 2007, 01:50:14 pm

Title: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: aRaven on December 08, 2007, 01:50:14 pm
Hi all!

I watched the Battle of Coruscant recently and at the beginning you can see obi wan and anakin engaging the afterburners (blue engine glow flashes) when diving under the capital ship.

so when the fighters of the pre civil war era have afterburners, it would make sense that the later craft have them also. what can we expect from the SWC in that regard? I'd love to see some underpowered SLAM systems on a X-Wing.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: TopAce on December 10, 2007, 08:55:28 am
The X-wing and the other -wings and TIEs don't have any kind of afterburner. Only the Missile Boat has SLAM systems in canon, if I remember correctly.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: aRaven on December 10, 2007, 05:16:53 pm
you never see them use afterburners. that doesn't mean they don't have any. even the anakins n-1 naboo fighter gave a brief burst when leaving the battle droid control ship.

its hard to believe only the eta 2 interceptors (in EIII) have them
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: jr2 on December 11, 2007, 02:51:45 am
Eh, they're called "Overdrives" - I'm not sure about their being canon, but I know the games had them.  (When pressed, the X-Wing would fold its S-Foils and flare engines; all other types of craft just flare engines and go faster.)
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Wobble73 on December 11, 2007, 05:53:20 am
Eh, they're called "Overdrives" - I'm not sure about their being canon, but I know the games had them.  (When pressed, the X-Wing would fold its S-Foils and flare engines; all other types of craft just flare engines and go faster.)

Yeah, Rogue Squadron had something similar (IIRC), but it was more like a top gear than an after burner! It certainly didn't seem limited by fuel.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Turambar on December 11, 2007, 10:15:20 am
this is the part where i come in and do my grouchy old man thing (despite the fact that i am but 20) saying that new star wars is not canon, and that you shouldn't be using things from episodes 1-3 as reference as they were only created to sell small plastic toys.

rogue squadron game mechanics are a bit too arcadey for our purposes, as well.  a higher speed but limited maneuverability mode for craft with s-foils would be canon though, and should be implemented.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: TopAce on December 11, 2007, 11:00:45 am
Turambar: All the movies are the highest level of canon. It's a fact. It's as much a fact as Earth being spherical. Stop arguing against facts.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: aRaven on December 11, 2007, 11:39:24 am
rogue squadron game mechanics are a bit too arcadey for our purposes, as well. 

i agree.

a higher speed but limited maneuverability mode for craft with s-foils would be canon though, and should be implemented.

why would only a craft with sfoils go faster? an x-wing going faster with its wings closed?
doesn't make sense... and there is no "would" be canon. Either it is canon of 1st, 2nd, 3rd a.s.o grade or it isn't.

Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Turambar on December 11, 2007, 11:43:54 am


why would only a craft with sfoils go faster? an x-wing going faster with its wings closed?
doesn't make sense... and there is no "would" be canon. Either it is canon of 1st, 2nd, 3rd a.s.o grade or it isn't.



speed increases because weapon energy is shunted towards the engines in that mode (enough power for at least one shot is kept [wraith squadron]), and maneuverability is hampered because the main engines have less space between them, and the (small invisible) maneuvering jets on the wings are not spread out [egvv and one of the x-wing books, i think]
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Flaser on December 11, 2007, 01:21:32 pm
The X-wing uses "etheric rudders", not manuevering jets.

(My physics subdaemon shudders in me whenever I tell things like that.)
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: aRaven on December 11, 2007, 03:05:40 pm
you can divert power to the engines without closing the s-foils (ala x-wing (game)) :P

another source of the xwings maneuverability is the gyromagnetic devices in the engines...

offtopic, but nice read: http://saxman.xwlegacy.net/Starfighters/X-wing.html
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: maje on December 11, 2007, 07:38:18 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Millenium Falcon engage afterburners when trying to divert the Star Destroyer Avenger's weapons energy to the bridge shield?  I know that Han never specifically says afterburners, but it does have the general appearance during that chase sequence of ESB.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: spartan_0214 on December 11, 2007, 08:53:30 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Millenium Falcon engage afterburners when trying to divert the Star Destroyer Avenger's weapons energy to the bridge shield?  I know that Han never specifically says afterburners, but it does have the general appearance during that chase sequence of ESB.

Correction: That would be engine flare from rapid acceleration, not an afterburner.


you can divert power to the engines without closing the s-foils (ala x-wing (game)) :P

Fact. Though Star Wars isn't noted for its realism (sound in space, aerodynamic starfighters), we are dealing with logic here, ergo we can use the logic that there is (almost) no resistance in space.


Quote from: aRaven
another source of the xwings maneuverability is the gyro magnetic devices in the engines...

Fact. And there are variable exhaust nozzles on the 4L4's (the exhaust nacelles in your link). The gyro magnetic devices help the variable exhaust nozzles in tight turns.


The X-wing uses "etheric rudders", not maneuvering jets.

(My physics subdaemon shudders in me whenever I tell things like that.)

Addendum: The "etheric rudders" are a combination of the variable exhaust nozzles and gyro magnetic devices.


speed increases because weapon energy is shunted towards the engines in that mode (enough power for at least one shot is kept [wraith squadron]), and maneuverability is hampered because the main engines have less space between them, and the (small invisible) maneuvering jets on the wings are not spread out [egvv and one of the x-wing books, i think]

Fact. X-Wing starfighters have an energy diversion system similar to FreeSpace's Energy Transfer System.


this is the part where i come in and do my grouchy old man thing (despite the fact that i am but 20) saying that new star wars is not canon, and that you shouldn't be using things from episodes 1-3 as reference as they were only created to sell small plastic toys.

rogue squadron game mechanics are a bit too arcadey for our purposes, as well.  a higher speed but limited maneuverability mode for craft with s-foils would be canon though, and should be implemented.

Query: Why would a higher speed limit maneuverability? The A-Wing starfighter has much faster fusial engines, but due to well-placed maneuvering jets and large variable exhaust nozzles. The TIE fighter is also faster than an X-Wing and also has increased maneuverability (in space; once it hits atmosphere...well, read the later X-Wing series books).


Yeah, Rogue Squadron had something similar (IIRC), but it was more like a top gear than an after burner! It certainly didn't seem limited by fuel.

Correction: The "top gear" was more than likely a quick transfer of energy to the engines and then a quick transfer back.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: jr2 on December 11, 2007, 10:39:19 pm
Ya... I think the "Overdrive" should be limited, but have a huge energy reserve.  (Remember the X-Wings in ANH had S-Foils locked until they prepared to have a go at the Death Star... )  So, probably enough for 5-10 mins or something.  Can someone verify that the speed boost is called "Overdrive"?  That's what I've heard it called (by my SW friend 10 years ago), but IDK what the source was... he had the movies, the games, and the books, so it could be anything.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: spartan_0214 on December 12, 2007, 05:38:02 pm
There isn't anything on the Star Wars wiki that says anything about an overdrive. However, Thrawn apparently helped develop a gunboat that had a SLAM system (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/SubLight_Acceleration_Motor)...
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: chief1983 on December 13, 2007, 12:31:51 am
In terms of an actual afterburner, there's not enough evidence in the movies that have the ships we're currently working on, or the other sources that deal with them, to prove that they should exist.  But, we will be doing some interesting stuff with the energy transfer systems on each ship, and some of them are going to have drastically different characteristics.  There are a couple of exceptions to this of course.  The Falcon may indeed have some sort of speed boost device, and the SLAM system in Thrawn's ships, but by and large, most ships don't have anything like an FS afterburner I don't believe.  As far as what possible purpose the S-Foils on the X-Wing could serve in space, I believe we're going with the way the maneuvering system works being the reason for it.  S-Foils open may aid the ships in making faster turns by having the gyro system further apart, while having them closed may increase efficiency or some other techno babble.  I don't think that simply opening and closing the S-Foils directly affects the ship's velocity.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: jr2 on December 13, 2007, 01:36:50 am
Hmm... but my friend wouldn't have told me that they were called Overdrives unless he heard it from someplace... if I can find where he got it from.... :mad:
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: chief1983 on December 13, 2007, 09:44:08 am
There may very well be a source that says that, but if it's a comic or one random novel, I really don't think it's enough to go against the rest of the sources.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: spartan_0214 on December 13, 2007, 05:47:51 pm
According to the Star Wars Wiki, S-foils (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/S-foils) were used for heat dispersion, atmospheric stability, and, on the X-Wing starfighters, increased weapon range.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: aurora_energy on March 10, 2008, 02:01:34 am
I think its possible that it has got to do with wind resistance, but that would only be the case when inside the atmosphere....

maybe the sfoil links together to not need to send the power from the generator to 1 engine back to the generator and instead let the energy pass through 2 engines resulting in doubleing the aperage. but yes you would be right, the primary reason for the sfoils are to have a more surrounding fire area... if that makes any sense...
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: spartan_0214 on March 10, 2008, 05:23:44 pm
:necro:

No, check the Star Wars Wiki page (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/S-foil), which distinctly says that S-Foils are used for heat dispersion, though they do help in atmo...
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: brandx0 on March 10, 2008, 05:25:37 pm
Yes, spreading out the fire points to a 3 dimensional area instead of a 2 dimensional one should increase hit percentages.

Also, looking at the interior of the X-Wing's S-Foils, you'll see a lot of exposed machinery, especially around the engines, hence the Heat dispersion factor.  Remember that in a vacuum, the only method of heat dispersion is via Radiation.  Convection and Conduction both need surrounding atmospheres to work, and thus the only way to decrease heat in a spaceship would be via having as much esposed area leading out into space and letting it bleed off (Though, the X-Wing's S-Foils wouldn't do that good of a job of it, the radiators would be better placed on the outside of the wings rather than inside, but hey, I'm defending artistic licence with science, it can't be perfect.)
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: spartan_0214 on March 10, 2008, 06:34:29 pm
I dunno, maybe the entire wing can disperse heat, and only some machinery shows to expedite the process (seeing as the machinery itself would heat up)...
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: TopAce on March 11, 2008, 05:32:08 pm
Yes, spreading out the fire points to a 3 dimensional area instead of a 2 dimensional one should increase hit percentages.

Also, looking at the interior of the X-Wing's S-Foils, you'll see a lot of exposed machinery, especially around the engines, hence the Heat dispersion factor.  Remember that in a vacuum, the only method of heat dispersion is via Radiation.  Convection and Conduction both need surrounding atmospheres to work, and thus the only way to decrease heat in a spaceship would be via having as much esposed area leading out into space and letting it bleed off (Though, the X-Wing's S-Foils wouldn't do that good of a job of it, the radiators would be better placed on the outside of the wings rather than inside, but hey, I'm defending artistic licence with science, it can't be perfect.)

Too much physics. Way too much. ;)
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: brandx0 on March 11, 2008, 05:33:41 pm
What can I say? I'm a smart kiddo.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Turey on March 11, 2008, 09:57:53 pm
Too much physics. Way too much. ;)

Tell me, have you ever hung out on the BtRL forums?
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Colonol Dekker on March 18, 2008, 05:36:52 pm
Are you going to touch on the b-wings s-foils? That would be informative to the lamen. :)
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: redsniper on March 19, 2008, 01:37:20 am
and will you make the B-wing fly upright when it's s-foils are deployed, or will the cockpit still be sideways?
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: brandx0 on March 19, 2008, 04:50:52 am
Not too sure about the B-Wing yet, one idea that was tossed around was using the animation code to have the B-Wing's body revolve around the cockpit as turns and banks are made, as was stated in its background fluff, but IIRC we were having some troubles with the fire points moving around too.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: aurora_energy on April 30, 2008, 02:41:45 am
If you have ever played battlefront II then you will see every fighter including the dighters during the galactic empire all had some kind of bost which functioned in exactly the same way as a burner, and it has to recharge and everthing.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: brandx0 on April 30, 2008, 11:56:17 am
As a general reminder, we aren't using other star wars games as a basis for this engine.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: BS403 on April 30, 2008, 03:26:00 pm
I know empire at war isn't the most canon source, but in it you could order X-wings to close s-foils, and they became faster and couldn't fire.  And the boost in SWBF2 is just for gameplay.

me? Hippocrit? No
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: aurora_energy on May 01, 2008, 05:28:25 am
What does it matter anyway? it will still be a awsome mod
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: foolfromhell on June 17, 2008, 11:17:05 pm
Damn, this sucks.

Fighting without afterburners is very annoying and boring.

Afterburners add tactile feedback and allow you to catch up to fleeing enemies.

Just try playing FS2 without afterburners.

Boring as hell.

Btw, NECROTHREDDAGEDDON
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: chief1983 on June 18, 2008, 12:59:57 am
If you're going to self necro do it right

:necro:

That said, as much as we don't want to be the previous Star Wars games, we also don't intend to be Freespace, and the combat in the previous SW games was just fine without afterburners.  If someone's faster than you, they're faster than you.  Deal with it.  Find a new tactic, turn around and see if they chase you, return to base and defend, etc.  It's not boring.  You think that an enemy with a faster ship shouldn't have the right to use that to their advantage and flee?  Besides, in FS, most of the ships were always using their afterburner too so I was still slower.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: brandx0 on June 18, 2008, 02:09:36 am
There will be no afterburners in this mod.

There ya go, answer from chief and answer from me.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Titan on June 18, 2008, 07:00:39 am
i honestly think that afterburners would be nice, but i definetly see your point. plus afterburners are for spoiled bratz that play too much freespace.  :P

if you ssay it'll be fine, i trust you.  :nod:
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Snail on June 18, 2008, 07:04:38 am
plus afterburners are for spoiled bratz that play too much freespace.  :P
So basically everyone on this forum is a spoiled bratz?
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: chief1983 on June 18, 2008, 08:36:50 am
Spoiled by Freespace and its afterburners, yes, more than likely.  Maybe could use a nicer term though, like, unenlightened.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Snaga on June 18, 2008, 08:50:36 am
I remember that when i played the x-wing series the only thing you could do to increase your speed was to redirect power to your engines, a feat that can also be used in FS. This came from the weapons, shields and tractor beam. It could be a significant increase of speed, especially if you had all 4 systems. also the AI didn't use that tactic to increase speed, so a slow ship could catch up with some faster ships.
That is the only thing I see that could be used to resemble an afterburner, unless the AI can be tweaked to use the power systems also to increase speed.
If, for instance, a Y-wing has a greater weapons system that an A-wing, it's speed with all power directed to the engines would have a higher increase in % than that ship, (note that I'm not talking necessarily about the actual speed). That can be easily set in the tables. So speeds could dramatically change depending on how much "power" we give to the other systems, changing completely the gameplay.  The possibilities are exiting. :nod:
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Wobble73 on June 18, 2008, 09:51:26 am
I remember that when i played the x-wing series the only thing you could do to increase your speed was to redirect power to your engines, a feat that can also be used in FS.

Actually, redirecting power to the engines doesn't make you go faster, it only makes the afterburners charge up quicker! :P
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Shade on June 18, 2008, 09:52:49 am
Wrong. It most definitely does make you faster.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: chief1983 on June 18, 2008, 10:25:31 am
Yeah Wobble, seriously how'd you miss that one?  :)

The difference in max base speeds and max Oclk speeds will probably be much more noticeable than in FS, and energy management will likely be more necessary than in FS.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Shade on June 18, 2008, 10:32:03 am
Quote
energy management will likely be more necessary than in FS
Just be careful not to overdo it ;) Energy management in FS is actually extremely important on harder difficulties, it's only when difficulty is set low that it can take a back seat role. So if you increase it's importance too much by reducing the energy output of the ships, you may make it impossible to play on the hardest settings.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Flipside on June 18, 2008, 10:56:55 am
That was one thing I loved about the original X-Wing game, a combat run against a Capship really did require you putting everything you could into the forward fields, and then praying you had enough energy to shunt up the rear shields on the retreat :)
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: TopAce on June 18, 2008, 11:54:19 am
...Energy management in FS is actually extremely important on harder difficulties...

Well, in SWC, it will be extremely important even on Medium. Medium < "harder difficultues". As a natural consequence of the result of this equation, and applying to FotG, it is reasonable to conclude that energy management will be more important in SWC than in FS.

Hope that helps. :P
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: aRaven on June 18, 2008, 06:19:15 pm
I remember that when i played the x-wing series the only thing you could do to increase your speed was to redirect power to your engines, a feat that can also be used in FS. This came from the weapons, shields and tractor beam. It could be a significant increase of speed, especially if you had all 4 systems. also the AI didn't use that tactic to increase speed, so a slow ship could catch up with some faster ships.

Not true. AI in XvsTIE and definitely XWA used that on top/superace.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Wobble73 on June 19, 2008, 03:53:37 am
Wrong. It most definitely does make you faster.

You know I never noticed that before?  :confused:  :nervous:
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: brandx0 on June 19, 2008, 04:12:57 am
Maybe you spent too much time on afterburners to notice =P
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: jr2 on June 19, 2008, 09:19:39 am
Umm, isn't the correct SW term "overdrive"?  I don't know if it's canon though.  But you can definitally assign more power to your engines for a speed boost, IIRC.  I think in SW, if I'm getting a correct read on this, the shields aren't all that hot on fighters, but they recharge pretty fast, unless they get damaged.  (which makes the decision on where to route your energy a critical one) Right?  Or not?
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: chief1983 on June 19, 2008, 09:47:53 am
Lawl, now that could be funny, afterburners that cause a temporary full depletion of shields and/or weapons.  There could be some interesting things done with that.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Turey on June 19, 2008, 01:38:57 pm
Lawl, now that could be funny, afterburners that cause a temporary full depletion of shields and/or weapons.  There could be some interesting things done with that.

That could be pretty interesting.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: brandx0 on June 19, 2008, 02:37:38 pm
It could be interesting, but I dunno, it seems a bit too arcady for me, I mean there's no real reference of any sort that suggests such a thing.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Backslash on June 19, 2008, 06:13:44 pm
I have an  idea.  What if the afterburner fuel gauge became the beam weapon energy gauge?  I'd have to code a couple new table entries for weapons... something like $Fuel Consumed .  But that's not hard at all.

Then I guess I'd have to make a flag that made it so there is a fourth ETS bar for Engines, and replace the existing Engines one with Beam.  Slightly more complicated, but doable.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: chief1983 on June 19, 2008, 06:22:10 pm
Or the three could be reworked to function more like the games, if only to eliminate the need for a 4th bar.  I mean how there was no engine power gauge, it was just known that it was the remainder of the other visible gauges.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Backslash on June 19, 2008, 07:42:11 pm
Right, yeah good idea.  There was a fourth bar visible but not controllable.  So I guess the flag needs to turn the existing bar (the one controlled with Pageup/Pagedown) into what recharges the 'burners' (or beams) but NOT the engine overclock.  And then the new engine bar is just what is 'left over'.

This way we don't have to add new controls either. :yes:
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: jr2 on June 19, 2008, 08:35:49 pm
Umm, in the books anyways, you basically decided whether to throw your energy at the shields or engines or balance.  If you're going full engines, you have better speed, but can only survive a shot or two.  (Read: Luke escaping from Thrawn's ISD tractor beam.)
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: brandx0 on June 21, 2008, 04:55:35 am
Well for the most part star wars ships are pretty vulnerable regardless.  If you watch the movies most of the fighters go down in only a few hits anyways.  The rebel advantage is a couple extra shots in, which could be pretty important in the gameplay we're planning to model.

Remember, our mod is trying to focus on the ability to avoid fire rather than absorb it.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Snail on June 21, 2008, 04:58:52 am
So how are you handling capital shielding, then? Will capships be harder to take down?
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 21, 2008, 05:32:25 am
I remember that when i played the x-wing series the only thing you could do to increase your speed was to redirect power to your engines, a feat that can also be used in FS.

Actually, redirecting power to the engines doesn't make you go faster, it only makes the afterburners charge up quicker! :P

This is dependant on the ships in FS, only the Bakha and Artemis/Artemis D.H. do it this way. :P
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: jr2 on June 21, 2008, 06:46:09 am
I remember that when i played the x-wing series the only thing you could do to increase your speed was to redirect power to your engines, a feat that can also be used in FS.

Actually, redirecting power to the engines doesn't make you go faster, it only makes the afterburners charge up quicker! :P

This is dependant on the ships in FS, only the Bakha and Artemis/Artemis D.H. do it this way. :P

QFT, using the $Max Oclk Speed.  :nod:

If anyone hasn't seen this, it's quite useful to read: (specifically in this context, anything to do with afterburners... how do you want them to handle?  Or just shut them off entirely... you could have no burners and still have the max oclk speed higher than normal, that might be more SW-ish if you want.)

Code: [Select]
;  file to indicate all ship types and their physical characteristics (such as physics info, etc)
;  format is a simple form of the mission files
;
;  Some general comments about some of the fields
;
;  Velocities are specified in (freespace) units/second.  You can currently only
;  specify velocities in the linear directions.  Rotational velocities are still
;  currently speified with thrust (until I get this fixed).  Rotation time is the
;  amount of time (in seconds) to complete 1 revolution in the given direction
;  (x is pitch, y is heading, and z is bank).
;
;  Damp affects how quickly you will accel/decel to your target velocity.  Higher damp
;  means slow acceleration and deceleration.  The lower this number, the faster
;  the ship responds.   For example, specifying a value of 0.0 means there is no
;  damping, in other words, people would say, "this has no physics, like Wing
;  Commander."   The more damping, the harder to control, but the more smoothly
;  it moves.
;
;  Accelerations:
;   All the acceleration numbers are damp factors for how fast the thing
;   changes speed.   0 would mean instantaneous velocity changes, and the
;   bigger the number, the slower the acceleration.  Sort of backwards, but...
;   forward_accel - The damp factor for when the ship is trying to go faster
;   forward_decel - The damp factor for when the ship is trying to slow down
;   slide_accel - The damp factor for left/right/up/down/reverse acceleration.
;   slide_decel - The damp factor for left/right/up/down/reverse deceleration.
;
;       Energy Transfer System:
;       $Power Output           =>      energy is produced per second by the ship's reactor
; $Max Oclk Speed         =>      the max forward speed of the ship when 100% energy
;                                       is directed at the engines
; $Max Weapon Eng         =>      how much weapon energy can be stored (related to $Energy Cosumed
;                                       field in weapons.tbl)
;
;       Afterburners:
;        $Afterburner                   => YES if afterburner present, NO otherwise
;
;        The following parameters must be present if $Afterburner is YES, otherwise comment
;   out or delete them:
;
;       +Aburn Max Vel:                 => x,y,z velocity when afterburner engaged
;       +Aburn For accel:               => forward accel when afterburner engaged
;       +Aburn Fuel:                    => fuel capacity of afterburners
;       +Aburn Burn Rate:               => rate in fuel/second that afterburners consume fuel
;       +Aburn Rec Rate:                => rate in fuel/second that afterburners recover fuel
;
;       $Subsystem:                     name, percent_damage, turret_turn_360_time
;               $Default PBanks:        ( "weapon1" "weapon2" )
;               $Default SBanks:        ( "missile1" "missile2" )
;               $SBank Capacity:        ( 50, 100 )
;
; A note regarding ship sounds:
;       The index for ship sounds corresponds to the index in sounds.tbl.
;  If you don't want to assign a sound, put -1 as the index.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: aRaven on June 21, 2008, 10:17:54 am
why do you people get the idea that transferring energy to the engines make the ships go faster? in canon a (movies) u never see such a thing. This energy management thing only came in the X-Wing game series.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: aRaven on June 21, 2008, 10:24:57 am
Well for the most part star wars ships are pretty vulnerable regardless.  If you watch the movies most of the fighters go down in only a few hits anyways.  The rebel advantage is a couple extra shots in, which could be pretty important in the gameplay we're planning to model.

Remember, our mod is trying to focus on the ability to avoid fire rather than absorb it.

The Jedi starfighter piloted by obi wan in the geonosis asteroid ring absorbed quite a bit of energy from the laser shots from slave 1. also in TESB the falcon withstood severe bombardment from the TIE fighters and ISDs.

it is believed that lucas only made the fighters in the big battles go down quicker because it would be boring to see a ship under sustained fire without anything happening. also mark that the fighters withstood heavy bombardment from the planetary (Deathstar) fire the whole time, thus weakening the shields considerably. we only see big battles in the movies anyway. so there is no real evidence the fighter shields are that weak anyway.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: brandx0 on June 21, 2008, 03:59:27 pm
Popped in my DVDs to rewatch some scenes, just to make sure my memory was correct:

Obi Wan's starfighter did manage to avoid most of the fire lanced at him by Jango, with many of the blasts exploding nearby him but not directly on his shields, and many hit a lot of the rock floating around (they explosions are too far away), also note that Slave I has rapid fire, low powered blaster cannons, not military grade lasers.

As for the Falcon, A) It's a much larger ship than the fighters and would naturally have better shields I'm sure.  Secondly, having watched that scene the falcon is only hit 3 or 4 times by lasers anyways, and none of the turbolasers hit it.

In general, the most commonly seen fighter combat has it being quick and deadly, a style of play that we've chosen to stick with.  The only scene that is in any of the movies that could really show it differently is that one scene in Episode II, and at the very most all you could use that as comparison of is simply between those two ships.  Prequels don't override the original trilogy in our minds.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Scourge of Ages on June 21, 2008, 08:49:12 pm
In my mind, I always viewed the blasters/lasers exploding really close to a ship was equivalent to them impacting on the shield bubble. Of course that is pretty inconsistent in the movies...
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: jr2 on June 22, 2008, 12:35:47 am
In my mind, I always viewed the blasters/lasers exploding really close to a ship was equivalent to them impacting on the shield bubble. Of course that is pretty inconsistent in the movies...

That's the only thing that would make sense.. they aren't "timed" to go off when they reach their mark, or you'd never see lasers overshooting their targets.  And of course they don't have proximity detectors.  I think shields can better handle "glancing" rather than "direct" hits, maybe?  Oh, and the IDS turbo lasers never landed shots on the fighters; they were designed to take down larger, slower vehicles, which the Rebels used to their advantage.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: TopAce on June 22, 2008, 10:08:01 am
...Of course that is pretty inconsistent in the movies...

That's the largest problem with sticking only to G-canon.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: brandx0 on June 22, 2008, 01:10:12 pm
Well we're not sticking only to G-canon, in case you haven't noticed.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: MR_T3D on June 30, 2008, 01:44:41 pm
watching epII, obi-wan fightet hasd 2 direct hits on it, and those do a fair amount of damage.

BTW maybe the inside manouvering jets are directed aft when s-foils close, which would increase speed, and reduce manouverability


OR maybe the force causes some resistance in space
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: aRaven on July 01, 2008, 09:19:33 am
no. there are no maneuvering thrusters for X-Wings. In the SW universe, space isn't space, its filled with the aether...and the ships maneuver through the aether with aether controls.

in analogy to air in real life ( modeling WW2 air combat)
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Colonol Dekker on July 01, 2008, 09:24:24 am
I never knew that :yes: Corellia has continental sized repulsorlifts under the tectonic plates, i heard somewhere is it true?
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Scourge of Ages on July 02, 2008, 12:27:51 am
I just assumed that "aether" in SW was sort of like subspace or hyperspace: There but not there; you can only influence it with the special drives like aetheric rudders or hyperdrives (?)

Whatever.

And about the giant repulsers, I can't recall about that. Unless you're referring to the "Legacy of the Force" books of which I've only read two. There is the thing about centerpoint station being a giant repulsor jet/cannon thing. Speaking of, I though a repulsor needed something solid to push against in order to work, and wouldn't work in deep space.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Wobble73 on July 02, 2008, 05:20:58 am
Speaking of, I though a repulsor needed something solid to push against in order to work, and wouldn't work in deep space.

That's what the name suggests anyway! Maybe they repulse against the aether?  :confused:  :nervous:
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Snail on July 02, 2008, 12:31:59 pm
Trying to explain Star Wars with real-world physics is futile.

Like how the hell can microscopic lifeforms called midichlorians make droids topple over?
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Mongoose on July 02, 2008, 01:57:14 pm
They can't.

Midichlorians don't exist.

It was all a bad dream.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: TopAce on July 02, 2008, 02:15:18 pm
You're mixing up terms.

Midi-chlorians allow someone to sense the Force.

You can use the Force - that you sense because of midi-chlorians - to Force push droids.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Colonol Dekker on July 02, 2008, 06:48:02 pm
So if someone was to breed them in a bacta tank style machine. They could make people strong in the force i'm guessing?
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: chief1983 on July 02, 2008, 06:53:33 pm
See that's the reason the whole concept of synthesized music pool sanitizer* is that it ruins the fact that the force is supposed to be mystic, not explained by science.  So no, you can't do that because it doesn't work that way.

*(MIDI-chlorines, in case it wasn't as obvious as I thought when typing it)
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Colonol Dekker on July 02, 2008, 07:03:11 pm
I always thought of the force as a zen state/mystic thing/born with not learned thing.
I'd never even heard of midgetchlorines til i read this. I just asked is all, i blame Jedi Academy and the staff of ragnos for putting mass produced Jedi into my head. :s
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: brandx0 on July 02, 2008, 07:04:22 pm
Actually, blame George Lucas for coming up with the midi****ians in the prequels =P
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Colonol Dekker on July 02, 2008, 07:09:40 pm
I didn't really say much attention to the prequels when i watched them, which one was it in?
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: brandx0 on July 02, 2008, 07:39:08 pm
All of them referenced it, but it was episode I that paid the most attention to them
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Scourge of Ages on July 03, 2008, 01:25:37 am
Hold up: did they ever actually say that midiwhatnots gave a person the ability to use the force? I'm not entirely sure, but I think not. If not, maybe the mp3chlorians are only attracted to someone who uses the force, and therefore would build up massively in someone like Anakin?
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: brandx0 on July 03, 2008, 02:42:19 am
It's pretty explicitely said that the Midiclorians pretty much are the force.  in Ep1 Qui-gonn explains it to kid Anakin, saying that they're what give a jedi power.  In ep3 Palpatine says that Darth Plageus could create life and stop people from dying via the midiclorians. 
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: aRaven on July 03, 2008, 06:27:13 am
no the midic. are the suborgans in a cell that communicate/control with the force. as obi-wan in ANH and yoda in TESB said, the force is a energy field that surround and penetrates us. It's not crude matter.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Wobble73 on July 03, 2008, 06:40:15 am
I'm pretty sure that Anakin was tested and was found to have the highest count of midichlorians ever, which is why Qui-gon thought he was the prophesized one to bring the force into balance. (or some such tosh!)
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Snail on July 03, 2008, 03:55:53 pm
So of course we're not abiding to g-canon, since g-canon includes: Greedo missing from point-blank range, minichlorians, 9 year old kids blowing up strategic military targets, 9 year old kids falling in love with 18 year olds, 18 year olds controlling planets, 9 year olds making fully functional Pod racers, 9 year olds making fully functional protocol droids, the prophecy, Ewoks, armies of battle droids, clones, midifukkians, UNLIMITED POWAR, dual-wield lightsabers, He Who Must Not Be Named, R2-D2 with jet thrusters, R2-D2 with jet thrusters, R2-D2 with jet thrusters, R2-D2 with jet thrusters, Hayden Christensen replacing Sebastian Shaw, Ewoks, midi****ingchlorians, Neimodians, 9 year olds flying pod racers, Han Solo not shooting first, UNLIMITED POWAR, really stupid fart jokes, Ewoks, Jar Jar Binks, midichlorians, <insert repeated phrase here> and everything from the prequel trilogy.

So will the prequels be canon to Fate of the Galaxy?
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: brandx0 on July 03, 2008, 04:35:21 pm
Luckily, in building a space sim, pretty much none of those complaints affect us Snail.

The Prequels will be canon, but we're not focusing on them.  It's not like we're gonna go out there and just make up our own universe.  Prequels happened, deal with it.  Are they as good as the originals? no, not even close, but for our purposes they don't really change anything except maybe giving us a few extra ships to play with.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Mongoose on July 04, 2008, 01:28:01 am
Also, Ewoks rule. :p
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Snail on July 04, 2008, 08:05:58 am
Also, Ewoks rule. :p
(http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/d/d4/Palpycropped.jpg)
"As we speak, my best men are on the Sanctuary Moon, being defeated by prehistoric primitives."
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Mongoose on July 05, 2008, 09:42:31 pm
These same "best men" can't aim well enough to hit a Rebel at 20 feet.  The fact that they were defeated by a bunch of teddy bears with rocks makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Droid803 on July 05, 2008, 10:50:16 pm
These same "best men" can't aim well enough to hit a Rebel at 20 feet.  The fact that they were defeated by a bunch of teddy bears with rocks makes perfect sense.
Hence
"As we speak, my best men are on the Sanctuary Moon, being defeated by prehistoric primitives."
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on July 05, 2008, 11:02:19 pm
Meh, it's the classic rule of heroic combat. The more bad guys there are, the worse their aim becomes.



Ie. Luke in the Death Star bay stands firing against a bunch of Storm troopers who continue to miss him while he's hitting doorbells, etcetera.

Meanwhile on Endor, one or two troopers in the bush, and when R2D2 comes down to open the door that one trooper nails him with a blaster shot.

But anyway, not sure what this has to do with Afterburners.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: aRaven on July 06, 2008, 05:03:40 am
The blaster accuracy of the elite troopers is really burning my after!

after, get it?? :D
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: chief1983 on July 06, 2008, 02:16:18 pm
That could very well be classic psychology at play.  It's collective laziness, the more people you throw at a particular task, the less effort applied individually.  So the more stormtroopers shooting at one target, the more they figure, why take the time to aim carefully, there's so much fire something has to hit him.  But then again, I'm sure a study that was based on things like tug of war hardly applies to a gunfight.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Scourge of Ages on July 06, 2008, 11:06:00 pm
Another brand of psychology I love is tracking the progress of conversations (threads) along their various topics. It's fun!

I'm not complaining here, since I think the afterburners topic was pretty dead, and I enjoy silly stuff like this.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: aRaven on July 07, 2008, 07:58:40 am
That could very well be classic psychology at play.  It's collective laziness, the more people you throw at a particular task, the less effort applied individually.  So the more stormtroopers shooting at one target, the more they figure, why take the time to aim carefully, there's so much fire something has to hit him.  But then again, I'm sure a study that was based on things like tug of war hardly applies to a gunfight.

No..just no... if you really mean it, give some sources of your hypothesis, just don't throw something pseudo-psycholgy out! :P
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: chief1983 on July 07, 2008, 10:09:50 am
That could very well be classic psychology at play.  It's collective laziness, the more people you throw at a particular task, the less effort applied individually.  So the more stormtroopers shooting at one target, the more they figure, why take the time to aim carefully, there's so much fire something has to hit him.  But then again, I'm sure a study that was based on things like tug of war hardly applies to a gunfight.

No..just no... if you really mean it, give some sources of your hypothesis, just don't throw something pseudo-psycholgy out! :P

Are you arguing with my statement about applying it to a gunfight, which I already stated I was merely speculating about and have no factual data to back up that speculation, or the idea of collective laziness (probably not the pseudo-scientific term for it)?  I thought that was a fairly accepted concept of sociology.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: aRaven on July 07, 2008, 02:01:49 pm
I never heard of it. I wouldn't get lazy to kick someone's ass even when our numbers were superior.  And I don't think anybody else would. What you are refering to is maybe the bystander effect?
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: chief1983 on July 07, 2008, 02:21:41 pm
Ok, forget the gunfight.  By collective laziness, I'm merely referring to this:

Take a game of tug of war.  Let's say you have 1 person on one end of the rope.  Now, take that person and add 2 more of him.  You might think that 3 of the same person would be able to pull on the rope 3x harder, but I believe that's not usually the case.  The more people you add, the more the effort per individual decreases.  I'm pretty sure this is typically applied to other situations too, such as group projects, etc.

Now, if that's entirely wrong, fine, but that's all I was referring to.  Then, mostly for the purpose of creating a joke, I applied that to a gunfight.  I don't take that very seriously in doing so.  The base reasoning had nothing to do with kicking anyone's asses, merely group behavior patterns.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: TopAce on July 07, 2008, 04:37:14 pm
That's not 100% accurate. It depends on what kind of motivation those people have. Say they are professional sportsmen. Then, it is reasonable to believe that 3 men are 300% effective. Say they are just schoolchildren killing their time on PE classes. Then, they'll not be at 300%.

What we are primarily talking about is collective responsibility or whatever it's English name (I never learned physcholoy in English). The more people take part in an activity the less responsibility one must take if the activity's outcome is unfavorable, say they are defeated in football.

Still I cannot see how that explains the stormtrooper effect. All we are dealing with here is that the heroes must survive against impossible odds in the movies, and not only the Star Wars movies, but movies like Rambo or any other conventional action movies. I mean, why would allegedly highly trained troopers disturb each other so much as to decrease their effectiveness so drastically?
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: brandx0 on July 07, 2008, 04:39:40 pm
The stormtrooper effect is easy to explain.  If the heroes died the first time they fought the enemy, it'd be a real quick movie.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: TopAce on July 07, 2008, 04:41:45 pm
...or if they fought with as many stormtroopers as they are, it would be boring.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: chief1983 on July 07, 2008, 05:36:31 pm
Hence my pointing out that it was mere speculation, even a joke if you will.  I didn't expect it to be taken seriously.  And I'm aware there are exceptions to that, it's not a rule of group behavior, more just a common occurance I believe.  It can be overcome, but if you're not focusing on it, you'll probably slack off in a group without even realizing it.  This is a great thread btw.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: MR_T3D on August 03, 2008, 08:48:30 am
the heroes have the force, and its influence over the weak-minded.

Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Snail on August 03, 2008, 08:50:16 am
the heroes have the force, and its influence over the weak-minded.
No, they have plot armor.
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 03, 2008, 08:56:27 am
I'm pretty sure that Anakin was tested and was found to have the highest count of midichlorians ever, which is why Qui-gon thought he was the prophesized one to bring the force into balance. (or some such tosh!)
If you think about it, he did fufill the prophecy. The prophecy said he'd bring balance to the force. During the Clone Wars, the light side was much more powerful, thus the Force was out of balance. By wiping out the Jedi to a spare few, he brought it back into balance. And later when Palpatine grew too powerful, he killed him, again bringing balance to the force.

And how did a discussion about afterburners turn into discussion over the Stormtrooper effect?

Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on August 04, 2008, 01:04:03 pm
I'm pretty sure that Anakin was tested and was found to have the highest count of midichlorians ever, which is why Qui-gon thought he was the prophesized one to bring the force into balance. (or some such tosh!)
If you think about it, he did fufill the prophecy. The prophecy said he'd bring balance to the force. During the Clone Wars, the light side was much more powerful, thus the Force was out of balance. By wiping out the Jedi to a spare few, he brought it back into balance. And later when Palpatine grew too powerful, he killed him, again bringing balance to the force.

     Balance in the force wasn't about force of numbers. The Sith only ever have two, the Jedi have many. That's by choice, and it's not the point. The point is people like Yoda couldn't predict the future or whatever they do because the force wasn't balanced and was all clouded over with darkness. I think he says something to that effect in ep2 or something to Obi Wan. And that's something that the Jedi were hiding, that they didn't know what was going on.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Turambar on August 04, 2008, 04:41:38 pm
or we can all admit that the prequels were horribly written, and then disregard any failed plot points that they attempt to make.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: brandx0 on August 04, 2008, 04:48:03 pm
For the Star Wars RPG there should be a perk called "Prequel Madness"

Prequel Madness
     New Mental Flaw: Extreme Angst
     New Mental Flaw: Short-Term Memory Loss
     New Skill: Beamz! (Level 5)
     New Skill: Kung Fu (Level 5)
     New Skill: Gettin Those Mothafrakkin Snakes off my Mothafrakkin Plane (Level 5)
     New Trait: Ally (Annoying Sidekick: Best played by the PC's baby brother or sister)
     Stat Bonus: Starfighter or Capital Ship Shinyness +10
     Stat Bonus: Backflip +15     
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: maje on August 04, 2008, 05:19:39 pm
Please do not inject the word "frak"   :ick: into the Star Wars universe.  Save that for the new BSG, where it belongs.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on August 04, 2008, 06:01:21 pm
Midichlorians on a Plane?
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 04, 2008, 09:44:39 pm
Anyone else noted the change in topic ? :lol:

Midichlorians on a Plane?
:lol:

or we can all admit that the prequels were horribly written, and then disregard any failed plot points that they attempt to make.
I suppose we can do that too. But Return of the Jedi was horribly written too. As if the Ewoks could overrun and defeat the 501st Legion! That, sir, is sacrileage!
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Scourge of Ages on August 04, 2008, 11:59:11 pm
     New Skill: Kung Fu (Level 5)
     New Skill: Gettin Those Mothafrakkin Snakes off my Mothafrakkin Plane (Level 5)
     New Trait: Ally (Annoying Sidekick: Best played by the PC's baby brother or sister)
     Stat Bonus: Starfighter or Capital Ship Shinyness +10
     Stat Bonus: Backflip +15     

Roffle, shinyness!

Also, I love the new thread title
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: chief1983 on August 05, 2008, 12:55:52 am
Also, I love the new thread title

Thanks.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Snail on August 05, 2008, 04:24:03 am
Midichlorians on a Plane?
Brilliant.

But Return of the Jedi was horribly written too. As if the Ewoks could overrun and defeat the 501st Legion! That, sir, is sacrileage!
RotJ was strange. After re-watching it after watching the prequels, I feel as if George Lucas was trying to send me a subliminal message telling me the rest of the SW movies would be crap. It included some things that were very similar to the prequel silliness, but slightly less of it.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: brandx0 on August 05, 2008, 04:30:44 am
If you ask me, RotJ wasn't bad.  It has some bad bits, but the good bits in it were as good if not better than any of the other Star Wars movies (Battle of Endor anybody?  Cmon tell me that wasn't epic, or the final battle between Vader and Luke)

Come to think of it, as I watched the movie again recently the only part I didn't like was the Ewoks (That's not including the silly musical number that the special edition added)
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Snail on August 05, 2008, 04:39:16 am
Was Coruscant in the original theatrical release?
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: brandx0 on August 05, 2008, 04:53:36 am
Nope.  Coruscant wasn't even heard of until Timothy Zahn wrote Heir to the Empire.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Snail on August 05, 2008, 04:57:18 am
So the special edition added in that crap too, huh? Along with adding Hayden Christiansen? Damn. George Lucas screwed himself over.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 05, 2008, 06:31:58 am
Is it that bad?
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Snail on August 05, 2008, 06:34:15 am
Is it that bad?
It is, because in the process he screwed Star Wars over, too.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 05, 2008, 06:36:54 am
I mean, is the special edition really, that bad. I've only heard rumors.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: aRaven on August 05, 2008, 07:43:24 am
special edition fixed some things but messed up many more.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Mongoose on August 05, 2008, 12:04:44 pm
I've always found some of the distaste I've heard for RotJ to be rather baffling, since it's been my favorite movie by far of the original three ever since I first saw it.  Sometimes I feel like the only person on the planet who loved the hell out of the Ewoks.  The Battle of Endor was beyond epic, and when you throw in Jabba's palace and those speeder bike chases...there's just no contest in my mind.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Titan on August 05, 2008, 01:44:58 pm
ahem, to all who do not understand

50 reasons why jedi completely and utterly sucks monkey balls (http://www.electric-escape.net/node/449)
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: brandx0 on August 05, 2008, 02:27:39 pm
Ah Titan, thanks for posting that link, I understand now.  Even though I liked the movie, your link has swayed me, and now I hate RotJ.

Cmon, seriously, try reading through that list in detail, and a lot of the stuff in there is just completely repetetive, with about 80% of the list simply being "I didn't like the Ewoks" or some that don't make sense (Saying that the Ships in RotJ look so clean and shiny?  I wonder if he's thinking of the prequels)
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: MR_T3D on August 05, 2008, 02:35:37 pm
I thought that RoTJ's ships looked a little better, some of the bits i agree.


BTW i read the original script of RoTJ, and in it some rebel cruisers did crash into the sheild, even during the battle.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: TopAce on August 05, 2008, 04:03:22 pm
Some moviegoers just aggrandize a bad scene or theme in a movie and generalize.

The Ewoks defeating a technologically superior foe may not be a good idea.

The Jabba Palace scenes were great. The Skirmish at the Sarlacc was even better. The Rebel pre-BoE briefing gave a great feel of the Star Wars universe. The battle - ground and space - itself is very showy. The lightsaber duel is epic.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: brandx0 on August 05, 2008, 04:42:50 pm
Because, as we all know, a technologically superior force always wins, especially when they're fighting against those who are defending their own territory with prepared fortifications and defences, and are also likely numerically superior...
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: maje on August 05, 2008, 05:27:25 pm
Though this is sacrilege, one can credibly argue that A New Hope is pretty boring until after the Mos Eisley take off, especially after watching Revenge of the Sith.  It's not really until the end of The Empire Strikes Back that the whole saga begins to really come together.

No, among my biggest beefs with the prequels was that none of the Sith apprentices had any character development, and really served no purpose other than cool bad guy.  I mean, Darth Maul had an awesome fighting style, but that's it.  Darth Tyranus really wasn't in the films save the end of Attack of the Clones and beginning of Revenge of the Sith.  Unless you watched the animated Clone Wars series or comics, General Grevious came out of nowhere.

Visually, the prequels have a lot more going for them, but you know, the originals were only made in the 70s and 80s so go figure.

ROTJ is fine as a film, the Ewoks are a little hokey, but it didn't kill the movie for me.  I mean, the Jawas aren't really that much different, you just don't know what they look like.

The special editions only really screwed up one thing IMHO, and that's Han not firing first.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: aRaven on August 05, 2008, 07:13:46 pm
Because, as we all know, a technologically superior force always wins, especially when they're fighting against those who are defending their own territory with prepared fortifications and defences, and are also likely numerically superior...

if the wookiees were the techn. inferior force as originally intended...but ewoks??? no, never.

and think of the prepared fort. and defences... GIANT TRUNKS that smash AT-STs with ease...how can ewoks ever manage to get these up in the sky in that short amount of time??
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: brandx0 on August 05, 2008, 07:25:37 pm
Well, the Empire's been on Endor for quite a while, maybe they had it all set up and were leading the imperials into various traps they had already been setting up for several months or even years.

It's their turf, their home, they know the terrain, and though there's no real source, I'd imagine they probably vastly outnumbered the imperials.  An Imperial legion is only just over 8000 troops.

If you doubt their ability, there's plenty of historical parallels that one could use.  Vietnam and Somalia come to mind right away.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Titan on August 05, 2008, 07:29:30 pm
i admit that that list is vary biased. there is something (not shown there) called 10 reasons why RotJ doesn't totally suck, and it actually made my next RotJ viewing much more enjoyable.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 05, 2008, 08:52:46 pm
I still dislike RotJ immensely, but don't let me stop you from watching. I liked AoC's ending tho. The start of the Battle of Geonosis, and the opening for RotS, the one which shows the Venators and Providences getting it on. I'm patiently waiting for the Clone Wars animated series. I've heard that Anakin gets an unofficial apprentice during the series.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Turambar on August 05, 2008, 09:30:31 pm
yay more continuity errors!

also, where were Victory Destroyers and Dreadnoughts in the Battle of Coruscant?  Yay spitting in the face of the established universe!
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 05, 2008, 09:35:57 pm
Lol, yea. I was wondering that. I saw plenty of Venators, but I didn't notice any Victories or Dreadnoughts. Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing Dreadnoughts during Battle of Geonosis, too, only Acclamators.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on August 05, 2008, 10:07:12 pm
Cmon, seriously, try reading through that list in detail, and a lot of the stuff in there is just completely repetetive, with about 80% of the list simply being "I didn't like the Ewoks" or some that don't make sense (Saying that the Ships in RotJ look so clean and shiny?  I wonder if he's thinking of the prequels)

    I'm not even sure what he's talking about ship wise. I recall Tantive IV being pretty damn clean and shiny on the inside.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Snail on August 06, 2008, 01:08:05 am
Didn't somebody prove Ewoks were only for the merchandising? The fact that the word "Ewok" is never uttered once in the movie makes me believe this even more.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Flaser on August 07, 2008, 01:18:32 pm
Reasons why ROTJ was "mediocre" compared to ANH and "bad" compared to TESB:
-No witty dialog. Lucas finally had the script to himself, and he can't write a dialog for ****s.
-Carry Fisher was on crack all the time - watch her performance, and you'll notice she's looking off into the distance and there's a discernible pause each and every time she has to act.
-For once Harrison Ford gives a bland performance - as far as Jabba's palace he gives a good show, but afterwards he's all chummy and light, the sarcastic, dark edge of his character is gone.
-Mark Hammil can't portray a mature character, granted Luke is still young, but a person should be more set and solid after becoming a Jedi knight (...or maybe not, but hell we're talking about ROTS here). He's more reserved and not so brash, and he gives a a superb performance when he 'goes over'; but the other times his character simply lack the "character" it had in the previous films. Throughout his interrogation he comes off as bland.

-I could live with the Ewoks. But they're way too kiddy-friendly. Somalia, Vietnam - the insurgents were always bloody ruthless and aggressive. Hell, even if they were inept gummy bears, I want my guerrilla fighters to be vicious in their methods and mentality....for without they're as good as a lost cause.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Topgun on August 07, 2008, 02:32:09 pm
am I the only one that thought ANH sucked? even AotC was better. ok, maybe not AotC. but still...
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: MR_T3D on August 07, 2008, 07:42:36 pm
WHAT!???!

ANH was the best one!

Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: aRaven on August 07, 2008, 11:16:07 pm
maybe TopAce first started watching starwars prequels before the classic trilogy :D.

ps: the prequels: epic fail.

I sincerely think Lucas had made a luckshot with ANH. TESB was directed by Kershner (very good) and ROTJ was ass, too.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 08, 2008, 04:27:54 am
...or maybe not, but hell we're talking about ROTS here). ...
I think you mean ROTJ ... :p
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: TopAce on August 08, 2008, 05:29:18 am
maybe TopAce first started watching starwars prequels before the classic trilogy :D...

And you concluded that based on my not hating RotJ?

By the way, no. I watched the originals first. Why I even liked the prequels was because I like Jedi action, and I think Palpatine's double identity is a great idea. But, of course, that's strictly related to afterburners. :D
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: aRaven on August 08, 2008, 07:22:16 am
maybe TopAce first started watching starwars prequels before the classic trilogy :D...

And you concluded that based on my not hating RotJ?


i concluded that based on you liking AOTC more than ANH :O
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: TopAce on August 08, 2008, 07:26:27 am
It isn't me that said that. It was the other "Top". Scroll up.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 08, 2008, 07:59:26 am
That was TopGun not TopAce. You two keep getting mixed up.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Snail on August 08, 2008, 09:38:58 am
No proof Fenrir!
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: aRaven on August 09, 2008, 11:18:54 am
That was TopGun not TopAce. You two keep getting mixed up.

Oops. My bad. :D
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 09, 2008, 12:20:31 pm
You know Raven, I keep misreading your name as Revan.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Topgun on August 09, 2008, 04:24:16 pm
I saw ANH first. And I thought it was AWESOME!!!!
because I was about nine.
after I saw ESB I was like, "WOW!!!!"
and then when I saw ANH again I was like, "those stormtroopers are so corny. this movie sucks. I can't believe I liked this stuff.":
ESB and RotJ rulez.
and then ep 1 came out and I was like, "hmm, cool". and when ep 2 came out I was like, "wow, anakin and padme's acting sucked."
and when ep 3 came out, I was like, "pretty cool".
story of my life.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: aRaven on August 09, 2008, 05:14:40 pm
You know Raven, I keep misreading your name as Revan.

damn...you revealed my secret identity ^^
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on August 10, 2008, 12:04:48 am
I saw ANH first. And I thought it was AWESOME!!!!
because I was about nine.
after I saw ESB I was like, "WOW!!!!"
and then when I saw ANH again I was like, "those stormtroopers are so corny. this movie sucks. I can't believe I liked this stuff.":
ESB and RotJ rulez.
and then ep 1 came out and I was like, "hmm, cool". and when ep 2 came out I was like, "wow, anakin and padme's acting sucked."
and when ep 3 came out, I was like, "pretty cool".
story of my life.

      Space is playing the prequel trilogy to promote the kiddie 3d crap coming to theatres. And I watch a bit and I can't believe that Lucas even friggin changed the prequels too! Watched the podrace and there was a bunch of crap put in there that was . . . pointless quite honestly. In the original some guy wipes out in front of Anakin and the pilot compartment narrowly misses Anakin and he's driving around and his mom looks away from the monitor. That was not bad directing. But now, they have the thing fly over his head, then some piece of debris severs Anakin's pod from one of the engines and he's twirling around behind the engines for like a few seconds before he stops spinning for no reason, and pulls out some magic stick to bring his line back to the pod. Oh and halfway through his mom looks away. It's like . . .adding all this random crap kills the pacing. How can a person screw up a mediocre movie even more???
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: aRaven on August 10, 2008, 07:39:07 am
I prefer the unused/deleted duel of the fates /naboo batte footage over some ben hur podracing...
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: MR_T3D on August 10, 2008, 02:51:53 pm
i thought he used the morce with that 'magic stick'... or it was magnetic
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 10, 2008, 11:39:16 pm
I always thought it was a computer spike of some sort, to overload the power thing and boost more power to his engines.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on August 11, 2008, 01:08:49 am
I always thought it was a computer spike of some sort, to overload the power thing and boost more power to his engines.

     No, in the "updated" prequel, after the guy in front of Anakin crashes and nearly takes his head off, a piece of debris severs one of his tow cable or engine harnesses or whatever. And after spinning around (but for some reason, not crashing, or hitting the ground) he stops spinning for no reason, and then uses some magnetic pole to grab the loose cable and re-attach it the chariot.

     Or basically, Lucas forgot what "build-up" means, and added a bunch of dangers to anakin during the race which makes his confrontation with Sebulba rather tame by comparison.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Mongoose on August 14, 2008, 02:06:31 am
Wait...so he even screwed with the podrace scene?  That was one of the few portions of episode 1 that I legitimately enjoyed.  Figures...
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 14, 2008, 02:40:07 am
My favorite scene in RotS is when R2 kapows the SBDs at the start of the movie.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Snail on August 14, 2008, 03:31:22 am
My favorite scene in RotS is when R2 kapows the SBDs at the start of the movie.
That scene, IMO, was pointless. It added nothing to the plot and just dragged along the cruiser crash sequence even longer. Instead of including stupid idiotic gags like that, they could have instead included the genesis of the rebellion bits with Bail Organa and Mon Mothma (included as deleted scenes on some DVD releases). Those would have added so much depth to the movie and also strung together the two trilogies seamlessly. But they just had to add idiotic R2-D2 jokes.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: aRaven on August 14, 2008, 04:36:31 am
agree...and the final lightsaber battle reminds me of gay ballet dances, but not as aesthetic. urgh
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 14, 2008, 04:52:59 am
I was trying to point out that that the sheer fact that my favorite scene in RoTS is a lame gag is a testament to the movie's fail.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: aRaven on August 14, 2008, 09:20:49 am
Gag fail!
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Scourge of Ages on August 16, 2008, 01:52:21 am
Uh oh.
This may be the wrong forum to ask this in, but has anyone seen the new Clone Wars movie? Is it worth the 5-9 bucks to see? You guys are the only guys I trust on the internet about this.

(Please no predictions that it's going to suck, that doesn't help)

And if I see it first, I'll let you know.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Snail on August 16, 2008, 02:14:23 am
When's it coming out?
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 16, 2008, 11:31:32 am
For us, August 28. It seems okay. I'm planning to watch it when it debuts, then I'll give ya'll a mini-review.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: aRaven on August 17, 2008, 08:51:57 am
Well I have heard it has a PG rating, so the wouldn't be such darkness.  I have also heard that CW is better than the prequel trilogy. I'm not surprised by this :).
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: MR_T3D on August 17, 2008, 10:12:45 am
still leaves room to suck!
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Topgun on August 17, 2008, 11:22:39 am
it looks sucky to me....
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: chief1983 on August 17, 2008, 05:15:34 pm
Uh oh.
This may be the wrong forum to ask this in, but has anyone seen the new Clone Wars movie? Is it worth the 5-9 bucks to see? You guys are the only guys I trust on the internet about this.

(Please no predictions that it's going to suck, that doesn't help)

If there was an appropriate thread on here to post this in, then this is the one.

$5, maybe.  $9, I doubt it unless it's IMAX/Mega Screen/etc.

I think it's going to suck :)

Honestly, all the early reviews have pretty much stated that it sucks.  I think George wants to buy another mansion or Sealand or something, so he has somewhere to go when all of his fans turn on him for real.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on August 17, 2008, 09:01:59 pm
Honestly, all the early reviews have pretty much stated that it sucks.  I think George wants to buy another mansion or Sealand or something, so he has somewhere to go when all of his fans turn on him for real.

       The story's obviously aimed at a young audience, if you've heard the so-called Padiwan speak at all. Sounds and looks like a 12 year old. But the story sounds pretty unimaginative. There's an entire galaxy to do battle in but they keep going back to the same stupid planets. I don't get it. (ie JABBA THE HUTS SON HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED! wowsa!)
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: aRaven on August 17, 2008, 09:21:07 pm
Despite the major suckage I can't fully turn my back on Star Wars... -.-
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on August 17, 2008, 09:29:18 pm
Despite the major suckage I can't fully turn my back on Star Wars... -.-

  So pick up the DVD or watch it on TV.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 18, 2008, 03:20:28 am
What do you folks think woulda happened if Anakin hadn't turned to the Dark side and instead let Mace Windu kill Sidious? Do you think Sidious would really have died?
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Snail on August 18, 2008, 04:03:02 am
What do you folks think woulda happened if Anakin hadn't turned to the Dark side and instead let Mace Windu kill Sidious? Do you think Sidious would really have died?
Nah, just UNLIMITED POWAR a bit sooner methinks.

Though, Terran Frakking Command said that when he played Mace Windu, he thought Mace Windu genuinely defeated Palpatine during that duel, just that Palpatine was relying soley on Anakin's betrayal. But that's just Terran Frakking Command, isn't it?

(ie JABBA THE HUTS SON HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED! wowsa!)
Then that's another inconsistency that appears due to Lucas' negligence of the already established Expanded Universe: Jabba the Hutt was smuggling cortosis (lightsaber resistant metal) to the Separatists. At the same time, apparently he was trying to stop Gardola the Hutt who was also supplying the Separatists. And now his son (who mysteriously appears out of the blue) has been kidnapped.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 18, 2008, 06:11:10 am
*snip*
Who'd have sex with a slug anyway? Who's his wife.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Snail on August 18, 2008, 06:14:45 am
Who'd have sex with a snail anyway? Who's his wife.
He's a slug, not a Snail. We spit on those shell-less second-class fools.

And besides, I'm pretty sure Hutts are hermaphrodites, like us.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 18, 2008, 06:26:07 am
My bad. Didn't mean to insult you there. I can't believe there was actually a decent Hutt way back in the Old Republic. He was even grand chancellor.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Mongoose on August 21, 2008, 11:46:53 am
The thing about the Clone Wars movie is that it was never meant as a stand-alone film; it's essentially the first three or four episodes of the upcoming TV series smooshed together and slapped on the big screen.  I've heard mixed reviews about it, but those who like it seem to feel like it recaptures some of the more innocent fun factor that was so painfully absent in the new trilogy.  I figure it might be worth a look-see...at the very least, you get to hear Christopher Lee and Samuel L. some more.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on August 21, 2008, 12:33:17 pm
The thing about the Clone Wars movie is that it was never meant as a stand-alone film; it's essentially the first three or four episodes of the upcoming TV series smooshed together and slapped on the big screen.  I've heard mixed reviews about it, but those who like it seem to feel like it recaptures some of the more innocent fun factor that was so painfully absent in the new trilogy.  I figure it might be worth a look-see...at the very least, you get to hear Christopher Lee and Samuel L. some more.

     Samuel L Jackson is like the worse Jedi ever.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: chief1983 on August 21, 2008, 03:48:40 pm
You know he demanded a purple lightsaber in exchange for doing the movie right?
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Mongoose on August 21, 2008, 05:58:48 pm
     Samuel L Jackson is like the worse Jedi ever.
If by "the worst" you mean "just about the only thing salvaging the trilogy," then sure.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Colonol Dekker on August 21, 2008, 06:04:18 pm
No he wasn't. He sucked. The best ting was the pre Imperial, Clone army equipment.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Excalibur on August 21, 2008, 07:24:04 pm
I have noticed a greater existance of word ships entering Terran Vasudan space.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on August 21, 2008, 08:13:03 pm
You know he demanded a purple lightsaber in exchange for doing the movie right?

      What, he wanted a purple lightsaber in the movie? That was part of the deal? Lame. Maybe he also demanded that he could wear hose under his cloak.




     Samuel L Jackson is like the worse Jedi ever.
If by "the worst" you mean "just about the only thing salvaging the trilogy," then sure.

       No, I mean, the worst as in "please, don't talk because you sound like a moron". I just remember him at the Council Chambers in the phantom menace and he say something about "we must unravel the secrets of the sith" or something like that, and tries to look wise and jedi-like but he just comes across as a dumbass quite honestly. One questions where he could ever act at all after watching him deliver some of his dialogue.

        And why weren't there any women on the council? Hell get Michelle Yeow, she knows how to use a sword, she looks old and wise and is a lot easier on the eyes than Jackson. Not sure if she has an accent though. But whatever.

        Jackson was better in the clone wars, but then again that wasn't jackson. Just a representation of his character. And he was a bit over the top as well (punching droids apart with his bare hands), but still cool.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Snail on August 22, 2008, 05:32:21 am
Samuel Frakkin' Jackson's actually doing the voice acting for this motherfrakker? Cool. :cool:
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Scourge of Ages on September 07, 2008, 04:28:56 pm
Ok, I saw the movie a couple of weeks ago and I can say this: Just about every (serious) review of the movie is correct.

Want a little more detail?
1. Lightsabers: good
2. Talking: bad
3. Blasters: good
4. Clone tactics: really bad
5. Droids: actually kinda' funny
6. Dooku: looks like butt. Not A butt, just like butt.
7. Bonus for you modelers: the textures were really cool, it looks like everything was a plaster model and painted with acyrlics; from the backgrounds to Dooku's beard, everything looks painted. I thought it was cool anyway.

Bottom line:If you can turn off the part of your brain that likes dialog and stuff that makes sense, you'll really enjoy this movie.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: MarkN on September 10, 2008, 12:38:20 pm
Quote
Bottom line:If you can turn off the part of your brain that likes dialog and stuff that makes sense, you'll really enjoy this movie.

And if you can't, why are you watching Star Wars??
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: BS403 on September 10, 2008, 07:24:54 pm
Personally I liked Samuel L. Jackson cause without him the only badass was Yoda and kinda obi-wan.  I mean come on emo anakin?
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Aardwolf on September 30, 2008, 02:49:43 am
Why not have Michelle Yeow acting but replace the voice with Samuel Jackson's?

 :nod:
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on October 05, 2008, 10:11:19 pm
Personally I liked Samuel L. Jackson cause without him the only badass was Yoda and kinda obi-wan.  I mean come on emo anakin?

       Samuel was only badass when he wasn't samuel and was drawn as a cartoon character in Tartakovsky's Clone Wars. Compare Morpheus from the Matrix to this, Jedi that Jackson played. They both spout the same kind of **** prophecy **** more or less, but one's convincing, the other one's making a fool of himself.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: General Battuta on October 05, 2008, 10:31:00 pm
The EU novel Shatterpoint made Windu my favorite character in Star Wars, with the possible exceptions of Mara Jade and Grand Admiral Thrawn.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Vidmaster on October 09, 2008, 08:05:44 am
You know he demanded a purple lightsaber in exchange for doing the movie right?
What, he wanted a purple lightsaber in the movie? That was part of the deal? Lame. Maybe he also demanded that he could wear hose under his cloak.

Wrong. He wanted a red saber. George said: Only the bad guys get red. Sam was pissed. Then George said what about purple? Sam agreed.

And the poor guy was cheated, since purple would have been cool. Instead, he wields a pink lightsaber now  :blah:

Oh and regarding afterburners:
No (obvious) afterburners in the movies. No afterburners in the X-Wing Novels. No afterburners in the X-Wing Games.
Therefore...    :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: chief1983 on October 09, 2008, 09:27:16 am
OMFG SOMEONE IS TRYING TO BRING THIS BACK ON TOPIC QUICK STOP HIM

Seriously though, that's been the internal consensus this whole time, no one's really going to convince us otherwise.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on October 10, 2008, 06:05:30 am
OMFG SOMEONE IS TRYING TO BRING THIS BACK ON TOPIC QUICK STOP HIM
:lol:


Wrong. He wanted a red saber. George said: Only the bad guys get red. Sam was pissed. Then George said what about purple? Sam agreed.

And the poor guy was cheated, since purple would have been cool. Instead, he wields a pink lightsaber now  :blah:
The only place it looks pink, iirc, is in the games. It looked plently purplish to me in the movies.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on October 17, 2008, 05:55:34 pm
Wrong. He wanted a red saber. George said: Only the bad guys get red. Sam was pissed. Then George said what about purple? Sam agreed.

     Should've given him orange, that's close enough to red, and goes good with all the blue lightsabers flying around. Course it will woulda sucked.


Quote
Oh and regarding afterburners:
No (obvious) afterburners in the movies. No afterburners in the X-Wing Novels. No afterburners in the X-Wing Games.
Therefore...    :rolleyes:

    Well, the gay missile boat essentially has afterburners or overdrive or whatever it's called.
    I'm sure the game can work without afterburners, it's just a matter of finding the right balance for the missiles.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Flipside on October 17, 2008, 08:52:04 pm
I still think a white lightsabre would be cool.

And as far as being 'in tune' with the Star Wars genre is concerned, I actually quite liked Darth Maul.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on October 17, 2008, 10:28:18 pm
KotOR's silver lightsabers are my favorite color. But their crystals are hard to find. I generally find blue/green/yellow/red.

And as far as being 'in tune' with the Star Wars genre is concerned, I actually quite liked Darth Maul.
Me too.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Mongoose on October 17, 2008, 11:07:39 pm
Would have been nice if he'd said more than five words throughout the entire movie. :p
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on October 18, 2008, 01:38:44 am
I still think a white lightsabre would be cool.

And as far as being 'in tune' with the Star Wars genre is concerned, I actually quite liked Darth Maul.

      Yeah he was badass. The sabre fight from that movie is still my favourite I think from the prequels.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on October 18, 2008, 08:37:12 am
Would have been nice if he'd said more than five words throughout the entire movie. :p
Yea. For the record, he's my favorite 'hero' in SW Battlefront 2.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Droid803 on October 18, 2008, 12:58:20 pm
Yea. For the record, he's my favorite 'hero' in SW Battlefront 2.
Nothing beats mowing down a horde of clones with a single sweep.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Flipside on October 18, 2008, 08:07:10 pm
Would have been nice if he'd said more than five words throughout the entire movie. :p

Considering some of the dialogue, that may have been what saved him ;)

Seriously though, the point in the Palace, when the door opens and Maul is standing there behind it, waiting for the Jedi was the only point in the 3 movies where I felt that 'this is going to be good' tingle.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Galemp on October 18, 2008, 11:12:02 pm
Would have been nice if he'd said more than five words throughout the entire movie. :p

Or none at all... he's almost a Badass Mute but not quite.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on October 19, 2008, 12:37:30 am
Nothing beats mowing down a horde of clones with a single sweep.
Hell yes. Nothing beats clearing the entire corridor in the Jedi Temple with a single saber throw, either.

Seriously though, the point in the Palace, when the door opens and Maul is standing there behind it, waiting for the Jedi was the only point in the 3 movies where I felt that 'this is going to be good' tingle.
Yep. Best part of the movie, imo. :yes:
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: aRaven on November 17, 2008, 10:08:30 am
Darth Maul is the single character that wasn't a f***** pussy in the prequels and was actually able to fight. Good thing you killed him off Lucas.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: General Battuta on November 17, 2008, 11:51:30 am
Would have been nice if he'd said more than five words throughout the entire movie. :p

Or none at all... he's almost a Badass Mute but not quite.

At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we will have our revenge.

Seriously, I don't think you can expect the movie's fight coordinator to act...he was the fight coordinator, right?
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Topgun on November 17, 2008, 12:47:18 pm
I think so, but he also acts in other movies (x-men for example, he played The Toad).
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: StarSlayer on November 17, 2008, 01:21:31 pm
Lack of great villains was probably one of the major (among many) shortcomings of the prequels, Maul was probably the only suitable one and they killed him off in the first go.  Droid army? lame, AARP jedi? lame  Cowardly Guts bag? lame.  Plus you couldn't invest in any of them either they had so little screen time, we had Vader for all 3 of the originals.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Mongoose on November 17, 2008, 01:22:20 pm
I think so, but he also acts in other movies (x-men for example, he played The Toad).
I only found out about that when some DVD on TV airing of X-Men mentioned that the one scene in the Statue of Liberty was an homage to his Darth Maul lightsaber.  Come to think of it, Toad had almost as few lines in that movie as Maul did in Episode I. :p
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Mobius on November 17, 2008, 01:32:21 pm
Lack of great villains was probably one of the major (among many) shortcomings of the prequels, Maul was probably the only suitable one and they killed him off in the first go.  Droid army? lame, AARP jedi? lame  Cowardly Guts bag? lame.  Plus you couldn't invest in any of them either they had so little screen time, we had Vader for all 3 of the originals.

It may have been a choice...maybe George didn't want to a great villain other than Darth Vader...
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Wobble73 on November 17, 2008, 02:17:35 pm
Are you all forgetting the one villain in all the films? The Emperor?
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Mobius on November 17, 2008, 02:23:52 pm
That wasn't a pure villain like Dark Vader...he was more like a "behind the frontline" operative...
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Titan on November 17, 2008, 04:18:32 pm
more like a big raisin
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: General Battuta on November 17, 2008, 04:39:12 pm
That wasn't a pure villain like Dark Vader...he was more like a "behind the frontline" operative...

I don't think you're saying quite what you mean to say. He was more of a pure villain than Vader. Nothing about him was redeeming, except possibly the argument that he was trying to unify the galaxy in preparation for the Vong invasion.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Topgun on November 17, 2008, 04:42:06 pm
Vong is BS anyways.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: StarSlayer on November 17, 2008, 04:54:36 pm
ugh Vong, destroyer of my interest in the Expanded Universe.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Titan on November 17, 2008, 05:46:19 pm
too bad a rule states that all SW novels and comics are canon
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Flipside on November 17, 2008, 05:52:54 pm
The best bad-guy from the books was Thrawn imho, I was kind of hoping he would be making a cameo appearance in the prequels.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on November 17, 2008, 06:20:02 pm
... Where did it say he was uniting the galaxy to prep for Vong invasion? I've never read that.

The best bad-guy from the books was Thrawn imho, I was kind of hoping he would be making a cameo appearance in the prequels.
Me too. But considering he only took like what, 20 years or less to rise to the rank of Grand Moff ... Tarkin was there tho. Standing on the bridge watching the Death Star.

Which by the way, is another piece of retcon bull****. How did the bugs get the plans if it was designed at the Maw Installation?
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Flipside on November 17, 2008, 06:26:29 pm
I liked him, ironically enough, because of the 'reality' of his situation. He had no direct influence over the Force,. he led a fleet that was, whilst extremely powerful, still the remains of a broken Empire, and he had to think his way through, there were no magical powers or mythical entities that were going to save him, just tactics, and his own knowledge, and yet he still managed to almost bring the New Republic to its knees.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: StarSlayer on November 17, 2008, 06:31:19 pm
Thrawn was great, he did make it into TIE Fighter though ;)  Course i always got the impression from the Dark Force Trilogy that cloning was a taboo, and that the clone wars were the clone masters against the galaxy, which probably would have been much more epic then a bunch of whiny voiced droids :P.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: General Battuta on November 17, 2008, 07:59:22 pm
... Where did it say he was uniting the galaxy to prep for Vong invasion? I've never read that.

It's just one argument. At some point someone in the novels suggests it, but by no means is it a canonical certainty -- merely something some people in-universe believe.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: CaptJosh on November 17, 2008, 11:16:09 pm
Thrawn was never a Moff. He was a Grand Admiral. Moffs were regional military governors, AFAIK. And they had brown uniforms anyway. A Grand Admiral's uniform is white.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Scourge of Ages on November 18, 2008, 12:32:43 am
Thrawn was great, he did make it into TIE Fighter though ;)  Course i always got the impression from the Dark Force Trilogy that cloning was a taboo, and that the clone wars were the clone masters against the galaxy, which probably would have been much more epic then a bunch of whiny voiced droids :P.
I'm going to have to agree with you on this.

And I think we can agree that Thrawn was at least one of the best villains, if not the best villain, if not just a really cool guy who happened to hate the New Republic.

And I believe the theory that The Emperor was preparing for the Vong invasion came late in the NJO series or early in the Legacy of the Force series, or possibly the novel, "Survivor's Quest" by Timothy Zahn, the creator of Admiral Thrawn.
Also the best Star Wars EU Author (imo).

Hmm. Reading back over that, I think I'm a fanboy...
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: General Battuta on November 18, 2008, 01:03:54 am
You're right, I think it was in Survivor's Quest. Though Thrawn himself was foreshadowed as preparing for some kind of extragalactic threat even before the Vong themselves were conceived.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Colonol Dekker on November 18, 2008, 07:15:26 am
:lol: @ how far off afterburners this topic hath detoured...
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Wobble73 on November 18, 2008, 07:28:52 am
:lol: @ how far off afterburners this topic hath detoured...

Quote from: the topic
or the Most Misleading Subject Ever

 :drevil:

At least we're not discussing Hitler yet, (although there is a movie villian for you!  :lol: )

Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on November 18, 2008, 07:55:56 am
You're right, I think it was in Survivor's Quest. Though Thrawn himself was foreshadowed as preparing for some kind of extragalactic threat even before the Vong themselves were conceived.
I read somewhere before that Thrawn had encountered fringe Vong species though. Altho I can't remember where exactly.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: chief1983 on November 18, 2008, 09:17:59 am
At least we're not discussing Hitler yet

Well we weren't, way to blow it.  Now we've come full swastika.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Colonol Dekker on November 18, 2008, 09:27:14 am
Originally a blueprint for wonky helicoptor rotors :nod:



Brought to you by Col'Dekkers made up fact of the day!
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Turambar on November 18, 2008, 04:27:53 pm
You're right, I think it was in Survivor's Quest. Though Thrawn himself was foreshadowed as preparing for some kind of extragalactic threat even before the Vong themselves were conceived.
I read somewhere before that Thrawn had encountered fringe Vong species though. Altho I can't remember where exactly.

misguided retconning by Zahn :-\

Seriously, all of Star Wars takes place in like 1/3 of the galaxy they have to work with.  the Unknown regions are huge! there could be an entire other instance of Star Wars going on!  we don't need to bring Intergalactic travel into this.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: maje on November 19, 2008, 05:38:50 pm
:lol: @ how far off afterburners this topic hath detoured...

Quote from: the topic
or the Most Misleading Subject Ever

 :drevil:

At least we're not discussing Hitler yet, (although there is a movie villian for you!  :lol: )



phah!  Hitler's overrated.  He only killed about 11 million -14 million.  Now if you want a REAL villain, look no further than Communist China's very own Mao Tse-Tung, with an astounding 60-80 million.  That's a monster that you can trust...., well actually, no.  You can't trust any of them, but I think you get the point.

Back on Star Wars though, I have this theory that there's nothing good beyond The Last Command.  I could be mistaken, but what books I consider to be my own personal canon involve Shadows of the Empire, the various Tales books, the original Thrawn trilogy, and the first four books in Michael Stackpole's X-wing series, and even then I have mixed feelings about some of the events portrayed in his books.  But I liked Kirtan Loor.  Not the highest ranking character, but a decent antagonist for Corran Horn.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on November 19, 2008, 05:47:46 pm
misguided retconning by Zahn :-\

Seriously, all of Star Wars takes place in like 1/3 of the galaxy they have to work with.  the Unknown regions are huge! there could be an entire other instance of Star Wars going on!  we don't need to bring Intergalactic travel into this.
Like wherever Revan and the Exile went off to. Something 'bout the True Sith.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: General Battuta on November 19, 2008, 07:20:49 pm
:lol: @ how far off afterburners this topic hath detoured...

Quote from: the topic
or the Most Misleading Subject Ever

 :drevil:

At least we're not discussing Hitler yet, (although there is a movie villian for you!  :lol: )



phah!  Hitler's overrated.  He only killed about 11 million -14 million.  Now if you want a REAL villain, look no further than Communist China's very own Mao Tse-Tung, with an astounding 60-80 million.  That's a monster that you can trust...., well actually, no.  You can't trust any of them, but I think you get the point.

Back on Star Wars though, I have this theory that there's nothing good beyond The Last Command.  I could be mistaken, but what books I consider to be my own personal canon involve Shadows of the Empire, the various Tales books, the original Thrawn trilogy, and the first four books in Michael Stackpole's X-wing series, and even then I have mixed feelings about some of the events portrayed in his books.  But I liked Kirtan Loor.  Not the highest ranking character, but a decent antagonist for Corran Horn.

All you're really missing in terms of great Star Wars books are the works by Matthew Stover.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Colonol Dekker on November 20, 2008, 06:49:28 am
Shadows of the Empire is about all the EU i've read/experienced....

Don't hate me for not understanding most of theis EU stuff.....

ps- KOTOR 1 + 2 as well :yes:
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: maje on November 20, 2008, 04:23:29 pm
How is KOTOR II?  I have 1 and would've beaten it had I not screwed up on leveling, but I pretty much got the jist of the end.

Do you play as Revan again?
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: bobbtmann on November 20, 2008, 07:01:21 pm
Oh man, I have to speak up on KOTOR 2. It was so incredibly bad, it's hard to know where to begin.

It was a really ugly game in the visual department. I found the colours used in the interface to be atrocious, and the extensive use of grey's and blacks completely robbed the game of life. The worlds in the game were sterile and unimaginative, also in part caused by the use of grey and black. The very last world is especially awful. I swear they could have mapped the whole thing without having to use the whole RGB thing. There isn't a single colour in the whole damn map. In all fairness, I suppose the temple might use red or something.

As far as the storyline goes, it was broken up by always switching characters which makes it impossible to suspend disbelief. The times when you play the main character aren't all that great either. There's this presumptuousness in saying that the main character is "in such intense pain". Since I'm sitting in my comfy chair with a bowl of m&m's and a bathroom down the hall, I'm in anything but intense pain. All the periphery characters are all either really shallow or really annoying, and there's this stupid wookie/bounty hunter thing that has the most pointless resolution ever.

Gameplay is strange. The designers seem to change stuff from the original game just for the heck of it, and the main character gets absurdly powerful by the end of the game.

Whew. As you can tell, I was really let down by the second one.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: General Battuta on November 20, 2008, 07:40:21 pm
I thought the story was ticking along fine until about halfway through. The endings were a major letdown, but that's because the game got rushed out the door for Christmas.

Blame LucasArts, not Obsidian.

Spoiler:
Kreia was a fantastic character. And she had the most spectacular Star Wars villain plot of all time.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on November 20, 2008, 07:50:22 pm
How is KOTOR II?  I have 1 and would've beaten it had I not screwed up on leveling, but I pretty much got the jist of the end.

Do you play as Revan again?
No you play as the Exile, who, cannonically, is female, so imo, KotOR 2 makes more sense if you play as a female Jedi.

*snip*
The KotOR 2 we all play is an incomplete version rushed out, as Battuta said, by LucasArts to make the Christmas deadline. Obsidian did leave the incomplete content in though, and there is a fan project in the works to restore it, and it should be finished next year.

Spoiler:
Kreia was a fantastic character. And she had the most spectacular Star Wars villian plot of all time.
Spoiler:
Hell yes. No other villian though about killing off the Force. Plus I still love HK-47, especially the episode with the pacifism program. :lol:
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: chief1983 on November 20, 2008, 10:50:31 pm
How do you blow stuff up?

Cannonically!

(http://swc.fs2downloads.com/media/cannon2.jpg)
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on November 21, 2008, 02:00:24 am
*snip*
:wtf:
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Wobble73 on November 21, 2008, 03:31:05 am
*snip*
:wtf:

No you play as the Exile, who, cannonically, is female, so imo, KotOR 2 makes more sense if you play as a female Jedi.


I think he means how you spelt canonically and the difference between canon and cannon!  ;)  :p
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on November 21, 2008, 04:45:50 am
... Well crap. :lol:
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Scourge of Ages on November 30, 2008, 07:10:20 pm
Hate to bring it up, since it's unpopular:
(Don't read this if you haven't played Knights 2)
I forget where it was KotOR, but in a conversation with Canderous /
Spoiler:
Mandalore in 2
, he mentions a raid with the Mandalorians where they were in an asteroid field blasting asteroids to make them explode. They shot one that didn't react right; instead it started moving around and shooting plasma. They followed it to the edge of the galaxy and lost it.
Edit: fairly innacurate description, but it's been a while since I played the game. end edit.

Total reference to the Yuzzhan Vong.

Some research later and bam: link (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Yuuzhan_Vong#Pre-invasion)
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Turambar on November 30, 2008, 07:54:57 pm

Total reference to the Yuzzhan Vong.


Yet another reason to dislike KotOR 2

(also, their basilisk war droid, which was just a horribly tile-textured model of a mandalmotors star viper from 4000 years in the future)
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: LordMelvin on November 30, 2008, 10:55:41 pm
You can always tell the die-hard Star Wars fans by how much they hate everything Star Wars.

Also, www.team-gizka.org is due about the same time as the next George Martin fantasy novel (He's been promising it soon since 2006 and "this year" since his new-years day update in January of 2007, but that's just my little pet peeve... I've got twenny bucks on  a year from this coming christmas at the earliest...) but stop by their site anyways and take a look at some of the stuff they're doing, it should make KOTORII actually worth playing.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on November 30, 2008, 11:30:34 pm
KoTOR II was incomplete when it shipped, but it was still a good game imo. And the conversation will only happen in KoTOR, not KoTOR II. In KoTOR II there's no way to make Mandalore talk about his past battles, not afaik.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Topgun on December 01, 2008, 10:59:51 am
Last night I saw the first episode of the new clone wars cartoon.

It sucked.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: spartan_0214 on December 01, 2008, 12:49:16 pm
Were you surprised?
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Flaser on December 01, 2008, 02:19:08 pm

Total reference to the Yuzzhan Vong.


Yet another reason to dislike KotOR 2

(also, their basilisk war droid, which was just a horribly tile-textured model of a mandalmotors star viper from 4000 years in the future)

WARNING: SARCASM AHEAD

...and Kevin J. Anderson's droids that are ridden like a beast of war are "pure genius" aren't they amirite?
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Scourge of Ages on December 02, 2008, 01:30:35 am
I've seen a couple episodes of the new Clone Wars, and surprisingly enough, they're not as bad as the film or the embarassing parts of the prequels.
(George Lucas doesn't write the episodes)

ah well, back to whatever topic we happened to be on this week...
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Titan on December 03, 2008, 02:57:59 pm
meh, my favorite part is the little quote at the beginning of each one, that replaces the 'long time ago in a galaxy far far away'.

My sister watched a little bit, and now uses it to justify that star wars sucks (she hates it because i like it.)
Title: Re: Afterburners
Post by: Renegade Paladin on December 16, 2008, 05:36:41 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Millenium Falcon engage afterburners when trying to divert the Star Destroyer Avenger's weapons energy to the bridge shield?  I know that Han never specifically says afterburners, but it does have the general appearance during that chase sequence of ESB.

Correction: That would be engine flare from rapid acceleration, not an afterburner.
And he got it in one.  That's what you see in the scene referenced in the OP as well.  Space being space, you don't need your engines on full burn all the time; you just point in the direction you want to go and turn them on long enough to accelerate in that direction. 
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: brandx0 on December 16, 2008, 06:01:25 pm
You're wrong about that, the drive flare from the Millenium Falcon has a very specific purpose and nobody's mentioned it:

It looks cool =P
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Stormkeeper on December 17, 2008, 02:05:29 am
You're wrong about that, the drive flare from the Millenium Falcon has a very specific purpose and nobody's mentioned it:

It looks cool =P
QFT
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: MetalDestroyer on December 27, 2008, 07:11:18 am
Well, it's not related to afterburner, but there is one think that trouble me. How will you manage to use different engine thruster color ? Since the color are dependant of the races table. I mean, 1 race = 1 thruster color. And, I didn't find any way to override this within the ships.tbl. So, the idea was to create many races as thruster colors.

Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: chief1983 on December 29, 2008, 12:14:27 pm
I think you can override the races thrusters in the ships.tbl file.  It just defaults to that race's thrusters if nothing else is defined for that ship.  I think.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: MetalDestroyer on December 29, 2008, 01:13:54 pm
I think you can override the races thrusters in the ships.tbl file.  It just defaults to that race's thrusters if nothing else is defined for that ship.  I think.

I confirm. I've just found out in the Freespace Wiki. ^^
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Snail on February 13, 2009, 05:05:55 pm
Since this is the off-topic area basically, I need to ask a stupid question.

Will we have the choice of flying freighters like the Millennium Falcon, or only fighters?
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Mobius on February 13, 2009, 05:08:47 pm
The Millennium Falcon was a modified freighter and worked as some sort of oversized fighterbomber. Since the engine supports turreted spacecraft piloted by the player(namely bombers) I don't see why we shouldn't fly the Millennium Falcon in FotG. :)
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: Snail on February 13, 2009, 05:24:49 pm
Maybe using Nuke's IR Tracking... ;7

That would be just cool beyond words. ****... Man I am a genius... I mean YOU guys are geniuses, yes. Yes.
Title: Re: Afterburners, or The Most Misleading Subject Ever
Post by: MR_T3D on February 19, 2009, 04:32:00 pm
and we should use that FPS emulation down the piepline to let us walk onboard it, and mount various weapons...